Stockport Council News

Dear Executive Councillors

I have twice in the past drawn your attention to what is happening regarding Mr. Parnell. All of you refused to express any concern whatsoever.

Please see the attached. I would appear there is a legal right to peaceful protest.  I think the damages the Council will have to pay Mr. Parnell will be huge for the 64 times the police were called and his repeated stay in police cells.  I assume your insurers won’t cover this illegal activity, as they have financial problems of their own, and that this compensation will have to come from council taxpayers’ money.

What a shame none of you acted to stop this abuse within reasonable timescales.

I hope neither Mr Parnell nor his daughters commit suicide, which is a possibility; in that tragic eventuality the Council will have to pay out tens of millions of pounds.

Yours in disgust at what you allow to continue in this rotten borough.

Sheila

Dear Chief Constable

I have now had a stalling reply from Stockport’s police commander.  If an effort is being made to make out that Mr Parnell is mad – and I can assure you he isn’t – then I must point out the case of the lady who jumped off the Humber Bridge with her 9-year-old autistic son.  Stockport Council issued an-after-the-event report pointing out that she was mad.  I doubt it, somehow, but driven to suicide by Stockport Council is a definite possibility.  I am trying to establish the facts in that case and the issue is with the Information Commission currently.  I have to point out that any inference on behalf of the police that Mr. Parnell is in any way mentally unstable will be vehemently disputed.

What an utter waste of police time this has all been – especially the incident of calling the police when he made one comment from the public gallery at a full council meeting and not one council officer would remain to explain to the police why they had been called. That would seem to me to be a criminal offence of wasting police time.

We will get to the bottom of all this however long it takes.

May I respectfully suggest that the Council are told to sort out this gentleman’s problems with regards to his human rights and his adopted daughters’ human rights and stop wasting police and court time.

I shall cc this to the local press and the Editor of the Guardian for their information.

Kind regards

Sheila

Dear Mrs Oliver

I refer to your email copied to the Chair of the Police Authority on 7 June.

The meeting is a public meeting open to all and it certainly will not be the intention of Greater Manchester Police Authority to attempt to restrict attendance by any particular members of the public.

Yours sincerely

Nigel J Battersby

Solicitor

Greater Manchester Police Authority

Salford Civic Centre

Chorley Road

Swinton

Salford

M27 5DA

Tel: 0161 793 3040

Fax: 0161 793 3085

email: nigel.battersby@gmpa.gov.uk

Visit the new GMPA Website: www.gmpa.gov.uk/

    —– Original Message —–

    From: “Sheila Oliver” [sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]

    Sent: 07/06/2011 18:04 CET

    To: “Leader” <leader@stockport.gov.uk>; “barry khan”

<barry.khan@stockport.gov.uk>; <eamonn.boylan@stockport.gov.uk>

    Cc: “Michael Parnell” <micksara@btinternet.com>; Councillor Paul Murphy; “Peter Devine” <peter.devine@menmedia.co.uk>; “Ged Lucas”

<ged.lucas@stockport.gov.uk>

    Subject: Police Authority Meeting, Stockport town hall

Dear Councillor Goddard, Barry Khan, Mr  Boylan

I note the Police Authority are coming to Stockport  Town Hall – a jolly good idea!

Will you be allowing Mr Parnell to attend and will  you be allowing him to put a question should he so desire, or will you try  to have him arrested on a restraining order on a crime of which he was acquitted  after council employees were found to have lied to the Court and Ged Lucas,  Assistant Chief Executive, couldn’t be bothered to respond to nine attempts by  the police to contact him to ask him to appear before the court, and following which he was severely criticised by the judge?  Just  wondering.

You remain my humble servants

Sheila

**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. The full text of the Council’s email disclaimer is available at http://www.manchester.gov.uk/emaildisclaimer.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept  for the presence of computer viruses.

Please contact internet.administrators@manchester.gov.uk with any queries.

**********************************************************************

DISCLAIMER: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee.

Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

As a public body, Salford City Council may be required to disclose this email [or any response to it] under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.

For the full disclaimer please access http://www.salford.gov.uk/e-mail.  Thank you.

Mrs Oliver,

I was merely trying to be helpful and reminding you that the vexatious ruling was specifically on requests from you on that particular subject and not a blanket ban. You were misleading others in saying that this was  a blanket ban. I did not want this factual error to be propagated by yourself, even if it was done inadvertently and without malice, as the councillor code of conduct obliges me to assume is the case in the conduct of my official duties.

The exchange did finally prove to me that as you were unable to name the precise documents you wanted, and the enquiries were indeed meant to disrupt the business of the council and so those requests were indeed vexatious. Indeed the correspondence started with a cryptic email from yourself consisting of just the words “either way I win”, as if this was just a game you were playing. I do not play games. I have a serious responsibility to provide sustainable educational facilities in North Reddish.

As an email from yourself yesterday declared I was a “complete idiot” I am not in a position to advise you of the appeal procedures. I think it would be sensible to get more expert opinion, especially as you declare (most probably correctly) you know more about FoI than I do. I am not surprised at this as you have in recent years submitted thousands of such requests.

Your constant threats to complain to the standards board are becoming repetitive. I always treat you with respect despite abusive and misleading and possibly libellous emails from yourself and I have always taken your points seriously, and have gone out of my way to be open and honest.

In the eight days of August 2009 you have emailed me 19 times , in July 2009, you emailed me 22 times, in June you emailed me 10 times. With regards to future emails; as from next week I am routing all emails from yourself to the FoI officer and they will only go to me if there is a relevant point the officer needs to verify with me. This is to avoid the constant barrage of offensive, and mocking and irrelevant emails you direct at me.

Sincerely

Mark Weldon

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Sat 08/08/2009 17:43
To: Cllr Mark Weldon
Cc: cleggn@parliament.uk
Subject: Re: Cost of trial of Mr Parnell, Stockport Magistrates’ Court

Dear Councillor Weldon

You are paid a lot of money to do the work you do.  If I want to contact you I will.

Please could you clarify the appeal process regarding my being banned from asking public questions regarding Harcourt Street.  You were of the eroneous opinion that I was given access to documents under the FOIA on this subject.  The Information Commission has told the Council to reconsider under the EIR 2004.  I asked in the first place under the EIR 2004, so it would appear the Council hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

I know a lot more about the FOIA than you do – when they reply I will be able to work out the cost of one night in such a prison and the cost of the abandoned trial in January, the one in July, the proposed one in September and the High Court Appeal.   I am currently getting the cost of the police being called over 80 times, the 11 arrests and the nights spent in a police cell.   I will take those figures when I have the final amount to the Taxpayers’ Alliance and with their help get a news story with a link to the actual CCTV footage of the non-incident involving Mr Parnell via the Internet.  I am sure the cost will come to hundreds of thousands of pounds,  if not more.

I want to know whether you checked the situation regarding my position and the FOI inquiries before you sent that email the other night. Either you checked and were lied to or you didn’t bother to check that I hadn’t had access to a large number of documetns.  I shall be putting in a complaint to the Standards Board when, if ever, I receive a sensible response from you. There is already a complaint in about Goddard calling me a liar publicly which he hasn’t provided proof of and his gloating email about Mr. Parnell being in prison and  him sending me confidential documents about Mr. Parnell.  Someone is going to start asking questions about what on earth is going on in this town under the Liberal Democraps.

Sheila

—– Original Message —–

From: Cllr Mark Weldon

To: Sheila Oliver

Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 4:45 PM

Subject: RE: Cost of trial of Mr Parnell, Stockport Magistrates’ Court

Dear Mrs Oliver,

Please remove me from your email cc list. I have no desire or need to know of your enquiries. One piece of advice. The FoI allows you to ask and receive copies of existing documents. It does not give you the ability to ask public bodies to generate information for you. If such a document does not exist they do not have to produce one for you. – Just trying to help.

Regards,

Mark Weldon

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: Sat 08/08/2009 16:43
To: FOIUnit@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Cllr Sue Derbyshire; Cllr Mark Weldon; Cllr David White; Cllr Dave Goddard; MICHAEL PARNELL; Barry Khan; Chief.Constable@gmp.police.uk; John Schultz; alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk; STUNELL, Andrew
Subject: Cost of trial of Mr Parnell, Stockport Magistrates’ Court

Dear FoI Officer

Following the newspaper reports of the £20,000 cost of a trial of a man found innocent of stealing one banana, please could you let me know – as accurately as possible, although a reasonable assessment would be acceptable – of the cost to the taxpayers of Mr. Parnell’s trial last January, which was dropped on the day of the hearing and the further trial which took place last month at Stockport Magistrates’ Court.  At this trial he was given a CRASBO (criminal ASBO) pre swine flu for assault with a sneeze with intent to inflict a council employee with a cold.  I believe CCTV footage of the incident was not allowed to be shown in court for some inexplicable reason.

I look forward to hearing from you.  If you need further details, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Kind regards

Sheila

**********************************************************************
Stockport Council is officially one of the best in the country.
Awarded four stars and improving strongly by the Audit Commission March 2009.

This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email, or any response to it, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport ICT, Business Services via email.query@stockport.gov.uk and then permanently remove it from your system.

Thank you.

http://www.stockport.gov.uk
**********************************************************************

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.47/2289 – Release Date: 08/07/09 18:37:00

Dear Ms Oliver,

I write to confirm that your email below (and your email of 22^nd March) have been brought to my attention. I note that you have requested that Mr Houston investigates your complaint further at Stage 2. I should inform you that this would be inappropriate given that I am specifically tasked with investigating complaints at Stage 2 of the corporate complaints procedure. Mr Houston has already investigated and responded to your complaint at Stage 1.

If you still wish to proceed with your complaint I would be grateful if you would let me know why you remain unhappy following the Stage 1 response? I look forward to receiving your comments within the next 10 days. I will then investigate your complaint and aim to provide you with an outcome within 20 working days.

Alternatively, if you do not wish for me to investigate your complaint you can escalate your complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO); however it is unlikely that they will investigate as your complaint has not been exhausted locally. The contact details for the LGO are as follows:

Local Government Ombudsman

PO Box 4771

Coventry

CV4 0EH

Telephone:    0845 602 1983

Text:                0762 4804323

Email:             advice@lgo.org.uk

Yours sincerely,

Anwar Majothi

Corporate Complaints Manager

Stopford House

Stockport Council

SK1 3XE

Tel: 0161 474 3182

Fax: 0161 474 4006

http://www.stockport.gov.uk

From: Sheila Oliver [mailto:sheilaoliver@ntlworld.com]
Sent: 26 March 2012 20:27
To: Steve Houston
Cc: Anwar Majothi; MICHAEL PARNELL; Eamonn Boylan; Leader
Subject: Mr Parnell

Dear Mr Houston

Regarding the letter sent by you on 8th March 2012, I can’t request Mr Majothi carries out the stage 2 complaint process because he is up to his neck in this case.  He should have realised the Council had a statutory duty to help Mr Parnell and got off his bottom and done something.  He didn’t – year after year after year.  He is a massive part of the problem.  You will have to deal with the Stage 2 complaint.

I have heard nothing back from Mr Parnell, so the letter of authority stands until you send me written confirmation that he doesn’t want me to act for him or I hear further from him.  I am happy not to act on his behalf as I have a lot on my plate, but I wonder if the two council officers you mention are the same ones who threatened to kill him, kick his f*cking head in and ram his phone so far up his backside he would be sh*tting phone parts for a week, or, indeed, the ones who attacked him.  Or, I wonder if they are officers who knew all this was happening (I sent you the video evidence) and did nothing about it.  I hope you don’t mind if I don’t take the word of anyone at Stockport Council. Documentary evidence is needed before I stand down.

I am taking the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, who have recently been very critical of the CPS. I didn’t know they existed.  Mr Parnell’s case should never have been taken by them to court as they failed to prove the five  statutory tests they need to establish before taking a case forward, and they took  a huge number of cases forward against him.

So, no whitewashes please.  Just do your job and do it properly and every step of the way I shall keep interested parties informed of your responses. 

Just some points from your letter which need raising:-

1) “this letter has addressed the issues raised under Stage 1 of the Council’s corporate complaints procedure.”  No, it hasn’t!

2) “I have decided not to uphold your complaint”.  This is not surprising but nevertheless disappointing.  You were, of course, always likely to support Mr Khan.

3) “It would be inappropriate for the Council to investigate the complaints you have raised on behalf of Mr. Parnell…..he subsequently spoke to two Council Officers to retract the consent.”

This comment is unacceptable.  It is vital to know who these supposed council officers are?  Please detail their  names and  the circumstances of this alleged encounter.

4) “As you no longer have authority to act on behalf of Mr Parnell, the Council is not obliged to investigate the issues you have raised on his behalf.”  I do have authority unless you prove otherwise.

I have experience of the Council’s complaints system which is innavigable.  I raised with Mr. Majothi the fact that the school which I correctly stated had a £5 million black hole in its funding, was to be put on unremediated toxic waste.  I got nowhere with Mr. Majothi and I think you will realise that I am no quitter.  He is impossible to deal with.  There are entire websites devoted to the sheer incompetence of our Local Ombudsman and as they employ former senior council officers, their impartiality is in doubt.

5)  I have repeatedly raised this matter with the former Chief Executive, the Leader, the Current Chief Executive, Khan, Webb and all the Executive Councillors.  I have the email evidence.  To say I have not raised this matter before is an untrue statement and I wonder why you should claim that despite a large amount of documentary evidence to the contrary.   I have been branded vexatious for contacting the Council repeatedly.  If the  Council stopped sending innocent council taxpayers to prison and failing to investigate their valid complaints, there would need to be less contact.

6) “Mr Parnell should have complained about these issues sooner”.  Mr Parnell tried and tried and tried, as can be confirmed by the local reporter.  He was repeatedly arrested for trying to enter council buildings.  I have had to plead with the police not to arrest him for trying to leave a council meeting early.  You forget there is masses of documentary police and court evidence.  Please do not insult my intelligence by making such ludicrous statements which are ill-befitting to a senior and highly paid Council officer.

Your letter is full of shoulds and mays and inappropriates and when you say it is difficult to investigate Mr Khan you mean you really don’t want to.

Please proceed with this complaint and do so in an honest and professional matter, bearing in mind the close scrutiny to which your replies and indeed the whole complaint process at Stockport Council will be put.

Yours

Sheila

The Council has launched its Big Green Borough initiative to show how we can make Stockport cleaner and greener. For all the latest news visit the new web pages at www.stockport.gov.uk/biggreenborough 

Confidentiality:- This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/labour-remain-charge-stockport-council-20645009#comments-section